As I understood as long as you stay "in emptiness", you're still dissociating yourself into something (whatever you attribute to the concept of emptiness). The flow of consciousness is not natural, but you're separating yourself from it, clinging to something, experiencing "a state" or a "certain sensation". It is some sort of self-hypnosis. That self-hypnosis helps to calm many thoughts down (because it dissociates into something very basic in your mind), feels good, but thoughts remain, attachment remains.

Only when you have given in to the flow of consciousness without "doing anything", not even hold on to thoughts, when everything arises spontaneously, you is gone. Then whatever appears just happens. It does not mean you don't act. Your actions also arise spontaneously. As I perceive it that can be compared with unbiased love of what just happens in the now (not happy-happy-joy-joy-ness), without wanting it to be any different or trying to make it stay the same, no matter how it appears.

Gwenn Dana wrote:Only when you have given in to the flow of consciousness without "doing anything", not even hold on to thoughts, when everything arises spontaneously, you is gone. Then whatever appears just happens. It does not mean you don't act. Your actions also arise spontaneously. As I perceive it that can be compared with unbiased love of what just happens in the now (not happy-happy-joy-joy-ness), without wanting it to be any different or trying to make it stay the same, no matter how it appears.

Are (unconditioned) children generally in the state of Buddhahood according to your outlook, Gwenn ?

March 2015. My core beliefs do not accord with Buddhism. I do not believe in mind. I believe in Atman (manifest spirit), and in Brahman (transcendental spirit) and that the Atman-spirit is (usually) cyclically reincarnated.

Gwenn Dana wrote:without "doing anything", not even hold on to thoughts, when everything arises spontaneously, you is gone.

But 'not even hold on to thoughts' isn't "not doing anything", because you not even hold on to thought's.. right? That's what you do. It's grasping. It's practiced nonpractice. It's fabrication, it's like you're freezing. It's like you follow the suggestion: "Do nothing" .. you fall into a trance, because you automatically practice "doing nothing" instead of doing nothing. And the reified-conceptualisation of this suggestion expresses itself as state of mind. Look for yourself. The qualities which arising from this state of mind you described, are the expression of your reified-conceptualisation of doing nothing. It's some-thing like "not doing anything'nes", seems to be behind, before, above the experience you have; I talk in a metaphorical way. And this quality (sometimes called subject/self/observer) is reified-identified with the experience. Therefore bliss and other stuff seems to appear. That's delusion. But there's another way to to implement this task. A completely unfabricated way .. . Note: The term "spontaneously" in the context of an primordial nonpractice like Dzogchen, doesn't mean: "Now .. now .. now .. . That's an artificial focus to. It means natural, immediate, obvious, primordial unfabricated.

Gwenn Dana wrote:without "doing anything", not even hold on to thoughts, when everything arises spontaneously, you is gone.

But 'not even hold on to thoughts' isn't "not doing anything", because you not even hold on to thought's.. right? That's what you do. It's grasping. It's practiced nonpractice. It's fabrication, it's like you're freezing. It's like you follow the suggestion: "Do nothing" .. you fall into a trance, because you automatically practice "doing nothing" instead of doing nothing. And the reified-conceptualisation of this suggestion expresses itself as state of mind. Look for yourself. The qualities which arising from this state of mind you described, are the expression of your reified-conceptualisation of doing nothing. It's some-thing like "not doing anything'nes", seems to be behind, before, above the experience you have; I talk in a metaphorical way. And this quality (sometimes called subject/self/observer) is reified-identified with the experience. Therefore bliss and other stuff seems to appear. That's delusion. But there's another way to to implement this task. A completely unfabricated way .. . Note: The term "spontaneously" in the context of an primordial nonpractice like Dzogchen, doesn't mean: "Now .. now .. now .. . That's an artificial focus to. It means natural, immediate, obvious, primordial unfabricated.

Sure. You just showed that this problem is recursive. Good for you. Do you really think I don't know that? So words won't be able to lead there. So we will never be able to nail that down on this forum. So? What does that have to do with what I experience when I'm driving down a road?

If we now want to get Brahmanic we say we do the practice that is neither done, nor not done, nor done and not done at the same time nor neither.

Gwenn Dana wrote:Only when you have given in to the flow of consciousness without "doing anything", not even hold on to thoughts, when everything arises spontaneously, you is gone. Then whatever appears just happens. It does not mean you don't act. Your actions also arise spontaneously. As I perceive it that can be compared with unbiased love of what just happens in the now (not happy-happy-joy-joy-ness), without wanting it to be any different or trying to make it stay the same, no matter how it appears.

Are (unconditioned) children generally in the state of Buddhahood according to your outlook, Gwenn ?

Hmm. there are two aspects in my opinion.

1. There are no completely unconditioned children. Everybody carries their karma to begin with.2. Children may more often fall back into a state of natural being (they don't have shifted defaults). But they're as easily pulled out. They have not learned to avoid that pull. They suffer. What we observe in our society is that children get drawn more and more towards an unnatural state when they grow, and throwing it all away needs practice. Most children don't have the practice recognizing those states.

Gwenn Dana wrote:Sure. You just showed that this problem is recursive.

Factual "non-focusing" isn't a recursive problem. But a recursive problem is the result of fabrication.

Gwenn Dana wrote:Good for you. Do you really think I don't know that?

Yes. Because it's a recursive problem for you.

Gwenn Dana wrote:So words won't be able to lead there.

That's a projection. You've read the text and just thought about it, instead of comparing it with the direct experience. Therefore you answer: "Words won't be able to lead here". Buddhism isn't Philosophy.

Gwenn Dana wrote:So we will never be able to nail that down on this forum. So?

Dear royal king, it's not about "nailing that down on this forum", it's about an shared buddhist endoperspective based in direct experience, sometimes called dharma.

Gwenn Dana wrote:What does that have to do with what I experience when I'm driving down a road?

Everything. Because your life/death is the result of the described process.

Gwenn Dana wrote:If we now want to get Brahmanic

Dear royal king, are we brahmanic or buddhist? Very different view, very different fruits.

Malcolm wrote:It means that consciousness descends into the womb, in the case of human being, joining with the spermatozoon and oocyte at the moment of conception.

When reading some replies, it seems that it is perhaps a common misunderstanding that father´s or mother´s consciousness would descend into that womb, via some magic sperm or ovum binding.

I only read that consciousness "descends" into that womb, from whereever.

Best wishesGwenn

It means that three things are required for conception to take place — the father's sperm, the mother's egg and a consciousness seeking rebirth.

If all things are in a state of nirvana can't we just say that any matter is capable of becoming sentient as a "functioning group of manifest matter" ... as scientists presently know to be true ?

Why must consciousness be a super-natural phenomena?

I'm not arguing with, or asking for, the explanations given 2500 years ago, but simply pointing out - with our current understanding of quantum physics - that such mystical explanations may be unnecessary.

Indeed; if "all that is" is itself consciousness, then how could there even be be any attachment process where two dual aspects of mind & matter co-join ? --Scientists can't find this mystical "mind" can they?!!

Sorry but I can't accept, as absolute truth, that mind latches onto matter. As I understand it; All Is Mind.

Further. If we create a dualism where mind & matter are not the same ...but distinct... how can the "Great Perfection" be credible as a valid non-dual experience ?

March 2015. My core beliefs do not accord with Buddhism. I do not believe in mind. I believe in Atman (manifest spirit), and in Brahman (transcendental spirit) and that the Atman-spirit is (usually) cyclically reincarnated.

Further. If we create a dualism where mind & matter are not the same ...but distinct... how can the "Great Perfection" be credible as a valid non-dual experience ?

All is mind? Do you mean mind is like space? Do you think that awareness and space are the same? Do you think that awareness needs an active perceiver? Do you think this mind is singular or multiple? All these questions get asked and we try to make a form out of the answer. A form such as 'All is mind'. So we have this form 'all is mind' and then what do we do with it? Do we try to hold onto it? Do we drop it and look for something else? Do we adorn the form 'all is mind' and turn it into a belief?

So you see that asking questions and coming up with answers isn't always the way to proceed. Neither is it right to have all the answers in doctrinal form. If we accept doctrine (such as the twelve links of interdependent origination) then what we take on and hold to are historical forms - some of which might be useful and most of which are not.

There are many on this board who consider themselves highly educated. They have dedicated a large part of their lives understanding these forms (i.e. All is mind) and yet have not really tasted realization. Their realization is being blocked by the holding on to and creating of forms. The forms they create tend to be highly conceptual imaginings of actual reality. Almost scientific but without the proof. Certainly they believe themselves to be rationalists.

So what to do? If we say 'don't create forms', then this 'don't create forms' is a kind of form. So a bit of a dead end. Or is it? I think this 'don't create forms' works quite well. It's a good beginning. Then see where it leads. This is of much more practical benefit then thinking forms in existence only to then drop them or reify them.

The Blessed One said:

"What is the All? Simply the eye & forms, ear & sounds, nose & aromas, tongue & flavors, body & tactile sensations, intellect & ideas. This, monks, is called the All. Anyone who would say, 'Repudiating this All, I will describe another,' if questioned on what exactly might be the grounds for his statement, would be unable to explain, and furthermore, would be put to grief. Why? Because it lies beyond range." Sabba Sutta.

I have here few lines, cannot find it on internet, Longchenpa: “out of Primordial Mind-as-such, which is like the Wish-fulfilling Gem….there comes the world of fictions, having as the condition for its presence the loss of pure awareness with its proliferation of divisive concepts…”

As I have only a small hand of words: is the sky not including all clouds ? The clouds (phenomena) are not same as the sky (mind) but not different.

Further. If we create a dualism where mind & matter are not the same ...but distinct... how can the "Great Perfection" be credible as a valid non-dual experience ?

All is mind?

garudha wrote: As I understand it; All Is Mind.

Andrew108 wrote:All is mind?

What are you saying, Andrew? I'm very clear on what I wrote and pose the question: If a "seer" posits there to be a "dualism" vis-a-via "Mind & Matter", then any reported non-dual experience would be a fallacy, wouldn't it ?

You think a "humam" is a melting pot of mind and matter, don't you ? From there you can imagine that it's possible to straddle both realms, stand in the middle, and have a non-dual experience.

no? Well what have you got to say ?

Last edited by garudha on Sun Apr 27, 2014 10:17 pm, edited 2 times in total.

March 2015. My core beliefs do not accord with Buddhism. I do not believe in mind. I believe in Atman (manifest spirit), and in Brahman (transcendental spirit) and that the Atman-spirit is (usually) cyclically reincarnated.

Try to think of something that's not true. Anything you think about, even a lie, is born from Buddha-Mind and is therefore TRUE.

Last edited by garudha on Sun Apr 27, 2014 10:10 pm, edited 1 time in total.

March 2015. My core beliefs do not accord with Buddhism. I do not believe in mind. I believe in Atman (manifest spirit), and in Brahman (transcendental spirit) and that the Atman-spirit is (usually) cyclically reincarnated.